4 ms·

"F4U" One of the best descriptions why F4Us win the day has to do with the engine. @WalterBright describes here about his Dad flying P51s/P47s [0], the later h

"F4U" One of the best descriptions why F4Us win the day has to do with the engine. @WalterBright describes here about his Dad flying P51s/P47s [0], the later having a radial engine like the F4U and why it was liked by pilots (engine reliability being one) [1] ... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9829666 [1] Thread on restoring a Spitfire ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9828694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9828694

Blackthorn 10y ago
I remember watching a long documentary series on WW2 aviation and the host, with zero fanfare, mentioned that a downside of the B-29 engines (and I think also some of the P51 engines) was that they had a tendency to catch on fire. I was like, wow, okay, that's a risk you don't really think about in today's planes but I guess when you have to churn out a lot of very powerful engines very quickly that sort of risk is just seen as acceptable.
- jabl 10y ago
  We've become spoiled by how incredibly reliable modern turbofans are (ETOPS etc.). I recall reading that before jets took over in passenger planes, it wasn't entirely uncommon that planes arrived with one engine failed. Big turbocharged (or even turbocompounded in some cases) multi-row radials are just very complex machines operating pretty close to their design limits.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Yes, failures were pretty common. According to this article, the Lockheed Constellation averaged 2-3 engine failures per year: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/longest-airline-route-in-the-world-180959770/ http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/longest-airline... And from what I can dig up, the Constellation had one of the more reliable engines at the time According to this press release, the GE90 engine which powers the 777 has a mean time between failure of one million hours: http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html If an airplane had four of those engines, it would expect to see an engine failure roughly every 30 years if it was flying 24/7. That makes it two or three orders of magnitude more reliable than the Constellation engine. One visible consequence of this is that it's now common to see twin-engine airliners on long overwater routes far from any emergency airport. It used to be that these routes were served by airliners with three or four engines, because the risk of a twin losing both engines before it could make the long flight to the nearest airport was just too high. Thus the popularity of the 747 on Pacific routes. These days, the risk of losing two engines is low enough not to be a worry, and aircraft like the 777 can serve those routes.

Blackthorn 10y ago

I remember watching a long documentary series on WW2 aviation and the host, with zero fanfare, mentioned that a downside of the B-29 engines (and I think also some of the P51 engines) was that they had a tendency to catch on fire. I was like, wow, okay, that's a risk you don't really think about in today's planes but I guess when you have to churn out a lot of very powerful engines very quickly that sort of risk is just seen as acceptable.

jabl 10y ago
We've become spoiled by how incredibly reliable modern turbofans are (ETOPS etc.). I recall reading that before jets took over in passenger planes, it wasn't entirely uncommon that planes arrived with one engine failed. Big turbocharged (or even turbocompounded in some cases) multi-row radials are just very complex machines operating pretty close to their design limits.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Yes, failures were pretty common. According to this article, the Lockheed Constellation averaged 2-3 engine failures per year: http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/longest-airline-route-in-the-world-180959770/ http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/longest-airline... And from what I can dig up, the Constellation had one of the more reliable engines at the time According to this press release, the GE90 engine which powers the 777 has a mean time between failure of one million hours: http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html If an airplane had four of those engines, it would expect to see an engine failure roughly every 30 years if it was flying 24/7. That makes it two or three orders of magnitude more reliable than the Constellation engine. One visible consequence of this is that it's now common to see twin-engine airliners on long overwater routes far from any emergency airport. It used to be that these routes were served by airliners with three or four engines, because the risk of a twin losing both engines before it could make the long flight to the nearest airport was just too high. Thus the popularity of the 747 on Pacific routes. These days, the risk of losing two engines is low enough not to be a worry, and aircraft like the 777 can serve those routes.